Assessing equity in clinical practice guidelines

Abstract

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe would like to acknowledge the contributions of the following people who contributed by reviewing and commenting on earlier versions of this paper:

Statin utilization according to indication and age: A Danish cohort study on changing prescribing and purchasing behaviour

“…The present study provides a picture of a guideline production based on an international scientific collaboration. Although, guidelines tend to shape the allocation of scarce health care resources [86][87][88], guideline recommendations are often partly based on extrapolations from RCT's and consensus assessments because published clinical evidence -described in relative terms in selected populations -rarely contains information readily applicable for clinical practice [89][90][91]. In fact, the threshold for statin therapy in asymptomatic individuals in the risk-scoring charts is entirely arbitrary [92][93][94].…”

Making the case for cervical cancer prevention: what about equity?

“…1,3,4 While it is essential to include these issues in health policy-making, other factors should also be considered. 5 The meaning of equity in relation to health has evolved since Whitehead offered her classic definition of inequity as differences in health that are unnecessary, avoidable, unfair and unjust. 6 Although disparities are objective and evident in data, equity also involves values and individual judgement.…”

Extending the PRISMA statement to equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012): explanation and elaboration

“…Authors should clearly report any disadvantaged population that was specified in the protocol and the reasons that consideration was given to the applicability of the results to the specified population. The applicability of the findings of a review to disadvantaged populations should be addressed similarly to considerations of applicability to any other population (Lavis 2009;Guyatt et al 2011;Dans, Dans, and Guyatt 2008;Dans et al 2007;Schünemann et al 2011). Authors should specify disadvantaged populations or settings for which the intervention is likely to be relevant.…”

“…The applicability of the findings of a review to disadvantaged populations should be addressed similarly to considerations of applicability to any other population, using explicit methods (Lavis 2009;Guyatt et al 2011;Dans, Dans, and Guyatt 2008;Dans et al 2007;Schünemann et al 2011). There is no agreed-upon checklist for judging applicability, although many checklists are available (Burford et al 2013a).…”